Much has been made lately of the Republican Party’s struggles – the latest involving the defection of Arlen Specter to the Democrat Party.

The fight has been cast by the commentariat and a few Republican politicians as a fight between ideological “purists” who, it is said, seek to shrink the Party, and the pragmatic sort who understand the need to remain inclusive.

I do not believe that is accurate – and it undermines the task before us to describe it so basically and so thoughtlessly. My observation is that when everyone is saying, essentially, the same thing, there is little thought behind it at all. How many times can yet another writer, observer, or “thinker” sitting in his office in Washington or New York explain to those of us in the trenches that we simply need to “be more accommodating,” and need to “expand the tent?”

They act as if conservatives want a small tent, to continue to use this tired and overused metaphor (used by many who have never been in a tent other than those put up at a horse race, wedding or fundraiser - by rich people for other rich people). Specifically, they misinterpret Senator DeMint’s recent remark suggesting he’d rather have 30 conservatives in the Senate than 60 unreliable ones to mean he wants to be in the minority.

NO. NO. NO. Of course he doesn’t (nor do any of us) want a minority Party. But he is saying, I believe, that if our Party cannot unite behind freedom and limited government, then what is the point of having 60?

In today’s Wall Street journal, Senator DeMint outlines his vision for the Party – and it is a vision appropriately rooted in the unifying power of freedom. These are the poles necessary to hold up the tent, he rightly contends. He says:

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems.

I commend the full text of op-ed to you, and ask that your forward it to your friends and family. This is an important discussion that should not be monopolized by the “thinkers” in ivory towers who mischaracterize a belief in freedom and limited government as a “purity” test, when they offer nothing in the alternative but polls, weak policy ideas rooted in desperate populism and theories on “messaging.” This is not leadership.

Senator DeMint leads with a vision rooted in our fundamental principles and American exceptionalism.

Virtually everyone agrees that Arlen Specter left the Republican Party in a completely selfish, hypocritical and unprincipled effort to save his own political hide in the face of opposition from a principled conservative who has a proven ability to win votes in Pennsylvania. The only question seems to be, why did this happen?

Some want to blame Toomey, the Club for Growth, Jim DeMint and others who have advocated a return to fundamental conservative principles by Republicans. Erick counters that well (or see below). But for those of us who really know how things work in the Senate, the answer is much more simple: Arlen Specter turned his guns on his own “friends” a few times too often…

Arlen Specter has long been a thorn in the side of Senate Republicans – and many of his antics are well known, be it voting against the confirmations of eventual colleague Jeff Sessions (for District Judge) and Robert Bork (Supreme Court), or his odd invocation of Scottish law in his vote of “not proved” during the Clinton impeachment trial. Still more people will point to his recent vote on the so-called stimulus bill and his massive spending proclivities as an Appropriator. All points are well taken.

But the damage done by Specter goes far deeper than this and has stayed largely off the radar screen of most close observers, much less most Americans. In his tenure as Chairman, and now ranking Republican member, of the Senate Judiciary Committee – Arlen Specter has employed marginal and often liberal staff, drained resources that could have been used by more productive conservative members of the Committee, refused to fight the liberal agenda of Patrick Leahy – often endorsing it, promoted legislation counter to Republican principles, and failed to defend President Bush’s nominees when the camera was not on him.

Read More →